Rome, Italy: Pope Francis made a seismic shift in Vatican policy this week. He appeared to accept the service of gay priests who dont act on their sexuality.

The implications cant be overstated. It has the potential to influence the views of those opposed to LGBTQ legal rights in many American states and countries throughout the world.

Celibacy is a requirement to serve in the Catholic priesthood. Hence, it shouldnt matter if the priest is gay or straight. Hence, celibacy becomes the key, not the sexual orientation. This changes much of the discussion.

According to the pope, If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge? He added, You cant marginalize these people.

The comments raise questions about long-standing Vatican policies that are spiritually and emotionally abusive. The predecessor of Pope Francis, Benedict, said homosexuality, is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder." Of course, science has long rebutted the notion homosexuality is a disorder.

In his comment, Francis spoke to the personhood of every individual, regardless of his calling to the priesthood. In doing so, he has set the stage for a lively, much needed discussion about human sexuality.

Will the Vatican now take a dont ask, dont tell approach to the priesthood? Will it permit celibate, but openly gay priests to serve? What message does it send to LGBTQ Catholics long marginalized by orthodox Catholics and conservative hierarchs, if openly, celibate gay priests serve the holy sacraments?

If a gay or straight priest acts on a need for physical intimacy and companionship, what makes it a sin, breaking the vow given to the church over celibacy?

If an openly gay, celibate priest is worthy to serve Eucharist, solemnize straight marriages, and perform the last rites at someones bedside, how is it possible two parishioners of the same gender cant have a blessing of their union, though not called a marriage?

Will gay, celibate priests be able to speak out against such injustices as discrimination in housing and employment due to sexual identity? Will a lesbian teacher now be allowed to keep her job at a Catholic school?

Does acceptance of gay priests finally break the ugly, hateful stereotype someone gay is inclined to be a pedophile, long perpetuated by conservative elements in the Catholic Church, but disavowed by science?

The comments made by Francis have enormous implications, assuming the dogmatists in the Vatican, once theyve recovered from their shock, dont down play his words and reaffirm Catholic orthodoxy without appearing to disagree with the pope.

This will either be a period of holy revelation for Catholics or one of growing theological and philosophical friction. Either way, this may be a very exciting time for the Catholic Church.

If you like to write about US politics, enter Allvoices The American Pundit political writing contest. Allvoices is awarding four $250 prizes each month between now and Nov. 30. These monthly winners earn eligibility for the $5,000 grand prize, to be awarded in December. If you do not already have a free account, sign up here.

The American Pundit on Twitter

Allvoices on Twitter Allvoices on Facebook

***

Paul Jesep is a policy analyst, corporate chaplain, and author of Lost Sense of Self & the Ethics Crisis: Learn to Live and Work Ethically.

PJesep is based in Schenectady, New York, United States of America, and is an Anchor for Allvoices.

“The comments rai.se questions about long-standing Vatican policies that are spiritually and emotionally abusive. The predecessor of Pope Francis, Benedict, said homosexuality, is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” “

Correct

“Of course, science has long rebutted the notion homosexuality is a disorder. “

I think in a sense these comments speak to his naiveté regarding public discourse in our current cultural decline. Perhaps he as led a cloistered existence and doesn’t fully grasp the rabid nature with which the immoral will twist and turn the words of truth for their own purposes.

In some ways his naiveté is more dangerous than his would be acceptance of homosexual priests.

The catholic church has knowingly allowed gays into the seminaries because they fear a decline of priests to lead the flocks, instead they have let in the wolves.

Pray for priests and the pope, they are under constant attack because they strive for the salvation of souls. Follow Christ and love your neighbor. Easier said than done.

13
posted on 07/29/2013 10:43:07 AM PDT
by longfellowsmuse
(last of the living nomads)

The Vatican did not “shift” at all. It as always been the policy that if someone suffers from a homosexual orientation, it’s like any other problem (for example, being born with a birth defect that leaves one crippled) and is a cross that must be dealt with. A person who is crippled cannot let himself be swamped by anger and bitterness or attempt to cripple other people of jealousy; a person who has homosexual tendencies (which I think are the result of upbringing) cannot let them take him over and cannot act on them.

Obviously, acting on a homosexual tendency would be a sin and encouraging it would be a sin, as he clearly points out. But people can fall and repent and come back again, and this has ALWAYS been the position of the Church. And it was not up to him to judge them (because only God can judge). That was all he was saying, not that homosexuality was ok.

I also think he wants to avoid having witch-hunts in the Church (he was asked about this in connection with the charges that an appointee of his was homosexual, which he had investigated and found without cause).

In addition, he made the point that when people become a “lobby,” they are essentially leaving the Faith for some cause of their own, and setting it up to the destruction of the Church.

Remember when Benedict said that some people argued that condom use was permissible in Africa (because of AIDS) but that they were not even useful in preventing AIDS - and the press came out saying that BXVI had announced that condoms were ok?

I think Pope Francis should be more careful about what he says, but at the same time, there’s really no way to keep the press from twisting his words, no matter how bland or neutral they may be.

No shift. Pope made distinction between the sin or temptation and the person. The person who is tempted should be cared for. The person who acts on activity is sinning gravely.

Not said is whether public knowledge of the sin disqualifies from priesthood. What is confessed in the sacrament of penance remains, as always, secret. I can't imagine an publicly active homosexual priest would remain in the ministry.

Men who enjoy sex with other men ( and animals and children ) do so because of the thrill of the taboo. In other words it is the thrill of doing perverted things and evil things that results in a high. Once the initial thrill of doing the taboo wears off, the perversion must be extended to regain the high. Look to examples of S&M behavior and torture combined with sexual acts. This leads to pornography, orgies and sex with children as it becomes impossible to achieve the high without increasing the degree of depravity. Homosexuality comes from a love of the perverse not from the love of another human being. It comes from a desire to rebel against the rules ( i.e. God’s natural law)

Now who started the rebellion? Look at the dedication in Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals if you need a refresher.

19
posted on 07/29/2013 10:55:55 AM PDT
by longfellowsmuse
(last of the living nomads)

The comments raise questions about long-standing Vatican policies that are spiritually and emotionally abusive. The predecessor of Pope Francis, Benedict, said homosexuality, is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder." Of course, science has long rebutted the notion homosexuality is a disorder. In his comment, Francis spoke to the personhood of every individual, regardless of his calling to the priesthood. In doing so, he has set the stage for a lively, much needed discussion about human sexuality.

Will the Vatican now take a dont ask, dont tell approach to the priesthood? Will it permit celibate, but openly gay priests to serve? What message does it send to LGBTQ Catholics long marginalized by orthodox Catholics and conservative hierarchs, if openly, celibate gay priests serve the holy sacraments? If a gay or straight priest acts on a need for physical intimacy and companionship, what makes it a sin, breaking the vow given to the church over celibacy? If an openly gay, celibate priest is worthy to serve Eucharist, solemnize straight marriages, and perform the last rites at someones bedside, how is it possible two parishioners of the same gender cant have a blessing of their union, though not called a marriage? Will gay, celibate priests be able to speak out against such injustices as discrimination in housing and employment due to sexual identity? Will a lesbian teacher now be allowed to keep her job at a Catholic school? Does acceptance of gay priests finally break the ugly, hateful stereotype someone gay is inclined to be a pedophile, long perpetuated by conservative elements in the Catholic Church, but disavowed by science?

What does a celibate-but-openly-gay priest look like?

20
posted on 07/29/2013 10:56:26 AM PDT
by Alex Murphy
("...Someone handed the keys to the Forum to the OPC and its sympathizers...")

Hmmm ... aeons ago, I was a teacher. One the first things I learned was that no matter how carefully I wrote or said something, no matter how much I tried to resolve possible ambiguities, some joker would find a way to misconstrue it.

26
posted on 07/29/2013 11:05:51 AM PDT
by ArrogantBustard
(Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)

There are plenty of heterosexuals who have made the personal decision to remain celibate for a higher personal goal.

The desire, in the abstract, to engage in sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex is not a desire to commit sin. It becomes sinful when the desire is specifically directed toward someone other than one's spouse.

The desire, in the abstract, to engage in genital arousal conduct with a person of the same sex is inherently a desire to commit sin.

Thus the normal person who abstains from sexual relations is giving up one good for what he perceives as a greater good.

The person who abstains from homosexual genital arousal is abstaining from that which is inherently evil.

32
posted on 07/29/2013 11:13:28 AM PDT
by ArrogantBustard
(Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)

Hmmm ... aeons ago, I was a teacher. One the first things I learned was that no matter how carefully I wrote or said something, no matter how much I tried to resolve possible ambiguities, some joker would find a way to misconstrue it.

________________________________

As another teacher I can state the same.

And we KNOW the press will always attempt to misconstrue what this Pope says...to suit their own perspective and/or agenda.

The slightest softening by any conservative institution is heralded as a major trophy by the Gaystapo, and these statements made by Francis were out of the park.

I witnessed in horror the Southern Baptist Convention meeting with radical homosexual activists last year at their national convention, and I was disheartened beyond telling. Merely giving them a place at the table was a major victory for the sodomites, even though they didn't get the answer they wanted. They operate by microscopic incrementalism.

37
posted on 07/29/2013 11:30:05 AM PDT
by fwdude
( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)

I hope there is a clarification forthcoming from the Vatican. Francis I's choice of words has serious implications when read out of context, which is, of course, how virtually everyone will read them. They will cause much mischief if not quickly qualified.

39
posted on 07/29/2013 11:40:02 AM PDT
by jboot
(It can happen here because it IS happening here.)

MOST of the priests who were pedophiles were homosexual. Homosexuals have done more to blacken the Catholic churches name than any other entity and ignoring them or playing nice with them will be a huge mistake. The same mistake as allowing them to adopt children.

44
posted on 07/29/2013 11:49:28 AM PDT
by Larry381
("Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.")

The SBC has recently shown troubling signs of relenting their stance against homosexualism. As you say, even the slightest concessions are damaging. Every inch thus conceded will only be won back with much pain and suffering.

This blurtation on the part of Francis I, grossly misinterpreted as it surely is, still constitutes far more than an inch. It will be walked back only with the greatest difficulty. But it must be walked back, lest the enemy be allowed to mold the words to fit his own schemes.

45
posted on 07/29/2013 11:52:38 AM PDT
by jboot
(It can happen here because it IS happening here.)

Pope Francis made a seismic shift in Vatican policy this week. He appeared to accept the service of gay priests who dont act on their sexuality.

That's not really a"seismic shift" is it? I believe that was pretty much the position of the previous Pope and maybe the one before (i.e. you don't choose what tempts you, but you do choose whether to act on that temptation or not)

46
posted on 07/29/2013 11:55:32 AM PDT
by MEGoody
(You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)

Every inch thus conceded will only be won back with much pain and suffering.

Very true, but you are far too optimistic even in this assessment. An inch conceded through a statement will establish a precedent that cannot be undone - a word spoken can never be unspoken. It will remain as an indelible foothold for some future anarchist to point to as a point of traction.

This is why the BSA will never be what it once was, even if they completely reverse the new unconscionable policy change made in May.

47
posted on 07/29/2013 12:02:31 PM PDT
by fwdude
( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.